Opinion is divided on whether tourists should avoid travelling to Burma. The country may appear to be an idyllic place, but it’s not. Aung San Suu Kyi, the elected leader of Burma, has been denied power and is now under house arrest. The British Foreign Office and the Burmese democracy movement have asked people not to visit the country. The UN describes Burma as a "saga of untold misery and suffering, oppression and exploitation."

Tourists it is argued by some help fund the regime and gives it legitimacy. Among other considerations, it is alledged that forced and child labour was used to develop many tourist facilities. Tourists can help by attempting to only patronise privately owned services, but this does not guarantee that funds will not reach the authorities. What may seem like a privately owned hotel or restaurant may in fact belong to the regime’s own families and business contacts.

Not all the leadership of the NLD believe that the tourist boycott is the right approach.  It can be argued that Burma makes so little income from tourism compared to what it receives from gas, oil and teak exports that the tourist boycott is unlikely to make them change their domestic policies. Many believe that if as many overseas tourists visited Burma as visit neighbouring Thailand it would be harder for the regime to maintain its isolation from the world.  A boycott is only effective if the revenue is being missed. The military junta desn't miss the money they might have received from tourism as they have many other sources of income but ordinary people (guides, taxi drivers, restaurant and guest house owners, etc) are being hurt by the boycott. Despite the protestations of the the USA and the EU, both China and India continue to compete with one another for influence in Burma and so long as they continue to invest any embargoes by the West are arguably futile.